Re: [Intel-gfx] Major 2.6.38 / 2.6.39 / 3.0 regression ignored?

[Kirill Smelkov <kirr@mns.spb.ru>]

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:23:36AM +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> Keith,
> 
> first of all thanks for your prompt reply. Then...
> 
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:00:41AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:08:06 +0400, Kirill Smelkov <kirr@mns.spb.ru> wrote:
> > 
> > > And now after v3.0 is out, I've tested it again, and yes, like it was
> > > broken on v3.0-rc5, it is (now even more) broken on v3.0 -- after first
> > > bad io access the system freezes completely:
> > 
> > I looked at this when I first saw it (a couple of weeks ago), and I
> > couldn't see any obvious reason this patch would cause this particular
> > problem. I didn't want to revert the patch at that point as I feared it
> > would cause other subtle problems. Given that you've got a work-around,
> > it seemed best to just push this off past 3.0.
> 
> What kind of a workaround are you talking about? Sorry, to me it all
> looked like "UMS is being ignored forever". Anyway, let's move on to try
> to solve the issue.
> 
> 
> > Given the failing address passed to ioread32, this seems like it's
> > probably the call to READ_BREADCRUMB -- I915_BREADCRUMB_INDEX is 0x21,
> > which is an offset in 32-bit units within the hardware status page. If
> > the status_page.page_addr value was zero, then the computed address
> > would end up being 0x84.
> > 
> > And, it looks like status_page.page_addr *will* end up being zero as a
> > result of the patch in question. The patch resets the entire ring
> > structure contents back to the initial values, which includes smashing
> > the status_page structure to zero, clearing the value of
> > status_page.page_addr set in i915_init_phys_hws.
> > 
> > Here's an untested patch which moves the initialization of
> > status_page.page_addr into intel_render_ring_init_dri. I note that
> > intel_init_render_ring_buffer *already* has the setting of the
> > status_page.page_addr value, and so I've removed the setting of
> > status_page.page_addr from i915_init_phys_hws.
> > 
> > I suspect we could remove the memset from intel_init_render_ring_buffer;
> > it seems entirely superfluous given the memset in i915_init_phys_hws.
> > 
> > From 159ba1dd207fc52590ce8a3afd83f40bd2cedf46 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
> > Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:44:39 -0700
> > Subject: [PATCH] drm/i915: Initialize RCS ring status page address in
> >  intel_render_ring_init_dri
> > 
> > Physically-addressed hardware status pages are initialized early in
> > the driver load process by i915_init_phys_hws. For UMS environments,
> > the ring structure is not initialized until the X server starts. At
> > that point, the entire ring structure is re-initialized with all new
> > values. Any values set in the ring structure (including
> > ring->status_page.page_addr) will be lost when the ring is
> > re-initialized.
> > 
> > This patch moves the initialization of the status_page.page_addr value
> > to intel_render_ring_init_dri.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c         |    6 ++----
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c |    3 +++
> >  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
> > index 1271282..8a3942c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
> > @@ -61,7 +61,6 @@ static void i915_write_hws_pga(struct drm_device *dev)
> >  static int i915_init_phys_hws(struct drm_device *dev)
> >  {
> >  	drm_i915_private_t *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> > -	struct intel_ring_buffer *ring = LP_RING(dev_priv);
> >  
> >  	/* Program Hardware Status Page */
> >  	dev_priv->status_page_dmah =
> > @@ -71,10 +70,9 @@ static int i915_init_phys_hws(struct drm_device *dev)
> >  		DRM_ERROR("Can not allocate hardware status page\n");
> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> >  	}
> > -	ring->status_page.page_addr =
> > -		(void __force __iomem *)dev_priv->status_page_dmah->vaddr;
> >  
> > -	memset_io(ring->status_page.page_addr, 0, PAGE_SIZE);
> > +	memset_io((void __force __iomem *)dev_priv->status_page_dmah->vaddr,
> > +		  0, PAGE_SIZE);
> >  
> >  	i915_write_hws_pga(dev);
> >  
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > index e961568..47b9b27 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > @@ -1321,6 +1321,9 @@ int intel_render_ring_init_dri(struct drm_device *dev, u64 start, u32 size)
> >  		ring->get_seqno = pc_render_get_seqno;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	if (!I915_NEED_GFX_HWS(dev))
> > +		ring->status_page.page_addr = dev_priv->status_page_dmah->vaddr;
> > +
> >  	ring->dev = dev;
> >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ring->active_list);
> >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ring->request_list);
> 
> I can't tell whether this is correct, because intel gfx driver is
> unknown to me, but from the first glance your description sounds reasonable.
> 
> I'm out of office till ~ next week's tuesday, and on return I'll try
> to test it on the hardware in question.

Keith, thanks again for the patch. As promised I've tested it on the
hardware in question and yes, bad_access is gone and X seems to work,
so thank you, but...


I see there are more such bugs in introduced-in-guilty-patch
intel_render_ring_init_dri(). For example ring->irq_queue is
left uninitialized and also ring->irq_lock etc...

I'm X newbie, so if here is something stupid X-wise, please don't
beat me too hard, but to me the gist of the problem is the original
patch, where Chris does

( git show e8616b6ced6137085e6657cc63bc2fe3900b8616 )
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> index 03e3370..51fbc5e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> @@ -1291,6 +1291,48 @@ int intel_init_render_ring_buffer(struct drm_device *dev)
>         return intel_init_ring_buffer(dev, ring);
>  }
>  
> +int intel_render_ring_init_dri(struct drm_device *dev, u64 start, u32 size)
> +{
> +       drm_i915_private_t *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> +       struct intel_ring_buffer *ring = &dev_priv->ring[RCS];
> +
> +       *ring = render_ring;
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
          here resets

> +       if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 6) {
> +               ring->add_request = gen6_add_request;
> +               ring->irq_get = gen6_render_ring_get_irq;
> +               ring->irq_put = gen6_render_ring_put_irq;
> +       } else if (IS_GEN5(dev)) {
> +               ring->add_request = pc_render_add_request;
> +               ring->get_seqno = pc_render_get_seqno;
> +       }

and then the rest of the `ring` is initialized seemingly copy-pasted
from intel_init_ring_buffer():

> +       ring->dev = dev;
> +       INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ring->active_list);
> +       INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ring->request_list);
> +       INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ring->gpu_write_list);
> +
> +       ring->size = size;
> +       ring->effective_size = ring->size;
> +       if (IS_I830(ring->dev))
> +               ring->effective_size -= 128;
> +
> +       ring->map.offset = start;
> +       ring->map.size = size;
> +       ring->map.type = 0;
> +       ring->map.flags = 0;
> +       ring->map.mtrr = 0;
...

where both 3 chunks go almost exactly from intel_init_ring_buffer(), and
ring->effective_size tweak even stripped original comment:

# original version from intel_init_ring_buffer():
        /* Workaround an erratum on the i830 which causes a hang if
         * the TAIL pointer points to within the last 2 cachelines
         * of the buffer.
         */
        ring->effective_size = ring->size;
        if (IS_I830(ring->dev))
                ring->effective_size -= 128;

...


The line marked "here resets" resets all the fields, and maybe it's not a good
idea to re-initialize them all afterwards (missing some as this thread show),
or at least if it is really needed, share initialization code between
intel_render_ring_init_dri() and intel_init_ring_buffer() ?

>From the outside it looks like the offending patch was done as a quick
fix in a hurry (lots of copy-paste), and maybe it would be better to
re-do it properly...


Thanks again,
Kirill